With Fehr end-around, owners hit new low—and waste lead

It was an accurate portrayal of why talks shut down. Owners wanted the players to make a deal without their PA head (and outside their NHLPA constitution).

NHL had turned over the proposal and it was a proposal that was to accepted in whole or rejected. NHL fully understood that Donald Fehr would be involved in accepting/rejecting during the NHLPA morning meetings.

After that NHLPA said they wanted to stop with the owner/player meetings because they wanted Fehr in the room for future meetings. The four new owners said ok and went home (except Tanenbaum, who left the day before because he was discouraged with what had happened) and Daly went to the meeting to accept what he thought was an acceptance/rejection of the NHL proposal.

If the players say they want to stop the owner/player meetings and NHL say ok, where is the drama?

NHL had turned over the proposal and it was a proposal that was to accepted in whole or rejected. NHL fully understood that Donald Fehr would be involved in accepting/rejecting during the NHLPA morning meetings.

After that NHLPA said they wanted to stop with the owner/player meetings because they wanted Fehr in the room for future meetings. The four new owners said ok and went home (except Tanenbaum, who left the day before because he was discouraged with what had happened) and Daly went to the meeting to accept what he thought was an acceptance/rejection of the NHL proposal.

If the players say they want to stop the owner/player meetings and NHL say ok, where is the drama?

The owners would only continue if there was no Fehr?

Why do you think they didn't want him in the room? Speculate, if you would?

Why do you think they didn't want him in the room? Speculate, if you would?

These four owners were only involved to see if with another dynamic in the room there could be some progress. They never planned to sit in on the regular meetings with Bettman and Fehr.

So yes, these owners would only continue if there was no Fehr and it was clear from the start. It was a given in the initial owner-player meeting proposal.

I think the reason why they wanted to just have players and owners talking was to open new lines of communications and by all accounts they did that Tuesday. Crosby respects Burkle and St Louis respect Winik. They tried to see if something would come of this.

Of course these owners realize that the players would run everything by Fehr anyway, so anyone claiming they were trying to sneak a new CBA in behind Fehr's back or anything is nonsense.

I don't see what the big deal is. They tried and it worked ok. The players didn't want to continue after Wednesday which is their full right.

Why do you think they didn't want him in the room? Speculate, if you would?

It's not obvious?

How would you see it if the owners demanded Bettman be involved in the middle of a negotiation? You would likely call them out on trying to pull a fast one on the players.

If there's one thing these players are unified on is their apparent complete lack of understanding of CBAs. It was obviously incredibly over their head and needed their PA head to Fehr-ize it for them and get involved. Once that happened the player/owner meeting was effectively finished.

At this point I fee like Fehr is dragging this as long as possible so he keeps getting paid. I actually view him as that petty.

NHL had turned over the proposal and it was a proposal that was to accepted in whole or rejected. NHL fully understood that Donald Fehr would be involved in accepting/rejecting during the NHLPA morning meetings.

After that NHLPA said they wanted to stop with the owner/player meetings because they wanted Fehr in the room for future meetings. The four new owners said ok and went home (except Tanenbaum, who left the day before because he was discouraged with what had happened) and Daly went to the meeting to accept what he thought was an acceptance/rejection of the NHL proposal.

If the players say they want to stop the owner/player meetings and NHL say ok, where is the drama?

Why retract all the negotiating just because the players want Fehr in the room to advise them on whether they've gotten a good deal or not?

All of the owners are business savvy, few of the players are.
The owners also know how to work press releases better than players.

.: the players are more likely to get screwed on a deal if they don't confer with Fehr than the owners are if they don't confer with Bettman.

The owners know that a room without Fehr is a room that's conducive to the owners getting a better deal. They know that any time Fehr steps into the room, they can break negotiations and pin it on Fehr and the PA through their PR skills.

Why do you think they didn't want him in the room? Speculate, if you would?

If I may interject, I suspect the idea was to develop some degree of harmony, however tentative. There has simply been too much animosity whenever either Bettman or Fehr are involved, and this process was an attempt to remedy that. I do not doubt at least some of the owners perhaps mulled over the idea of "pulling a fast-one" but I also believe they fully anticipated having the leaders finalize. The PA just jumped the gun, so to speak.

Why retract all the negotiating just because the players want Fehr in the room to advise them on whether they've gotten a good deal or not?

All of the owners are business suave, few of the players are.
The owners also know how to work press releases better than players.

.: the players are more likely to get screwed on a deal if they don't confer with Fehr than the owners are if they don't confer with Bettman.

The owners know that a room without Fehr is a room that's conducive to the owners getting a better deal. They know that any time Fehr steps into the room, they can break negotiations and pin it on Fehr and the PA through their PR skills.

and yet without Fehr in the room the players were getting better terms than they had to that point..

These four owners were only involved to see if with another dynamic in the room there could be some progress. They never planned to sit in on the regular meetings with Bettman and Fehr.

So yes, these owners would only continue if there was no Fehr and it was clear from the start. It was a given in the initial owner-player meeting proposal.

I think the reason why they wanted to just have players and owners talking was to open new lines of communications and by all accounts they did that Tuesday. Crosby respects Burkle and St Louis respect Winik. They tried to see if something would come of this.

Of course these owners realize that the players would run everything by Fehr anyway, so anyone claiming they were trying to sneak a new CBA in behind Fehr's back or anything is nonsense.

I don't see what the big deal is. They tried and it worked ok. The players didn't want to continue after Wednesday which is their full right.

Did you miss Bettman's speech? He took everything off the table. They rejected the PA's proposal and we're back to .... not sure which square.

Why retract all the negotiating just because the players want Fehr in the room to advise them on whether they've gotten a good deal or not?

All of the owners are business suave, few of the players are.
The owners also know how to work press releases better than players.

.: the players are more likely to get screwed on a deal if they don't confer with Fehr than the owners are if they don't confer with Bettman.

The owners know that a room without Fehr is a room that's conducive to the owners getting a better deal. They know that any time Fehr steps into the room, they can break negotiations and pin it on Fehr and the PA through their PR skills.

There weren't any negotiations planned. The NHL offer was a take it or leave it and if NHLPA accepted, they would move on to settle the transitional stuff.

I don't see how players are getting screwed since the only side that moved without Fehr in the room was NHL and besides everyone knows Fehr have to sign off on any NHLPA move anyway.

I don't think there has been any attempt from NHL to make any big deal of NHLPA wanting Fehr in the room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fugu

Did you miss Bettman's speech? He took everything off the table. They rejected the PA's proposal and we're back to .... not sure which square.

I know you are keeping up with events better than this. Bettman took everything off the table because the NHLPA failed to treat a take it or leave it proposal as a take it or leave it proposal but instead kept the goodies and tried to negotiate the rest. You know this. It had zero to do with the player-owner dynamic being there or not.

and yet without Fehr in the room the players were getting better terms than they had to that point..

In the sense that any negotiation is going to work toward the middle ground, yes. That doesn't disprove what I've said; if Fehr was the one negotiating, over time he'd probably get an even better deal for the players than the one the owners just offered.

In the sense that any negotiation is going to work toward the middle ground, yes. That doesn't disprove what I've said; if Fehr was the one negotiating, over time he'd probably get an even better deal for the players than the one the owners just offered.

Please. The more moderate elements from both sides held sway for a short period of time and made some headway. I firmly believe it was the player hardliners worried about a deal coming together that were the one's leaking the quotes about NHLPA members "worried" about owners doing an end around their leadership. When in fact they were worried they were moving the process along too quickly. It was cover to bring Fehr in to slow things down again and move away from a deal. Its what they want. They want the NHL season on the brink of cancelation. They feel thats when they will have the most leverage. They may be right but its one hell of gamble.

I know you are keeping up with events better than this. Bettman took everything off the table because the NHLPA failed to treat a take it or leave it proposal as a take it or leave it proposal but instead kept the goodies and tried to negotiate the rest. You know this. It had zero to do with the player-owner dynamic being there or not.

Well go over to the lockout thread and look at the article from Cotsonika. I don't see anything there that's worth dying on hill over, to be honest. Between the agreement on variance and term limits (8 yrs from the PA proposal)..... the cap circumvention should no longer be a worry. If you can make the NHL's case for them, and why they wish to die on that hill, please do so (but over in the other thread). Thanks.

There weren't any negotiations planned. The NHL offer was a take it or leave it and if NHLPA accepted, they would move on to settle the transitional stuff.

They've spent the past few days negotiating. Those negotiations helped form the feedback required for the NHL to create an offer. Unfortunately, the NHL has a tendency to make the PA play by its rules (ie accept the proposal), or the NHL will take its ball and go home for a week. That kills the negotiating momentum by essentially taking all the issues they agreed on during the most recent round of negotiations, and saying 'we don't agree on those any more'.

Quote:

I don't see how players are getting screwed since the only side that moved without Fehr in the room was NHL and besides everyone knows Fehr have to sign off on any NHLPA move anyway.

I don't think there has been any attempt from NHL to make any big deal of NHLPA wanting Fehr in the room.

The players and owners negotiate a deal and agree to it in principle, without the players realizing it favours the owners. The PA takes it to Fehr, who tells them it favours the owners.

One of two things happen.
1. The players excitement at the prospect of playing undermines their willingness to listen to Fehr, so they push him aside and accept the deal that favours the owners.

2. The PA accepts Fehr's advice, and now has to go to the owners and say 'sorry, we're not getting a the deal we thought we were'. The owners get a field day with PR by villifying Fehr for 'stopping the deal' and for making the players look like they've reneged on their word.

They've spent the past few days negotiating. Those negotiations helped form the feedback required for the NHL to create an offer. Unfortunately, the NHL has a tendency to make the PA play by its rules (ie accept the proposal), or the NHL will take its ball and go home for a week. That kills the negotiating momentum by essentially taking all the issues they agreed on during the most recent round of negotiations, and saying 'we don't agree on those any more'.

The players and owners negotiate a deal and agree to it in principle, without the players realizing it favours the owners. The PA takes it to Fehr, who tells them it favours the owners.

One of two things happen.
1. The players excitement at the prospect of playing undermines their willingness to listen to Fehr, so they push him aside and accept the deal that favours the owners.

2. The PA accepts Fehr's advice, and now has to go to the owners and say 'sorry, we're not getting a the deal we thought we were'. The owners get a field day with PR by villifying Fehr for 'stopping the deal' and for making the players look like they've reneged on their word.

Well 1 of the 2 lead us to hockey?

But I don't see that they have to agree to a deal. They have one of the 2 brothers in the room. It's been rumored here that he will take over for his brother. I think both sides had enough help to get to a point where they can agree.

Please. The more moderate elements from both sides held sway for a short period of time and made some headway. I firmly believe it was the player hardliners worried about a deal coming together that were the one's leaking the quotes about NHLPA members "worried" about owners doing an end around their leadership. When in fact they were worried they were moving the process along too quickly. It was cover to bring Fehr in to slow things down again and move away from a deal. Its what they want. They want the NHL season on the brink of cancelation. They feel thats when they will have the most leverage. They may be right but its one hell of gamble.

Again, most of this is stuff I've agreed with.

I've already agreed that the players made headway without Fehr. The players, no matter who's in charge, will eventually close the gap and reach a more middle ground than they're at today (ie the NHL's offer will be more fair to the players as time progresses, regardless of who's in charge; it's the nature of negotiations).

What I disagree with isn't that the NHL offer to the PA today was better than previous NHL offers negotiated under Fehr.

What I do disagree with is the assertion that a PA lead by the players would sign a more player-friendly CBA than a PA lead by Fehr.

But I don't see that they have to agree to a deal. They have one of the 2 brothers in the room. It's been rumored here that he will take over for his brother. I think both sides had enough help to get to a point where they can agree.

Both options eventually lead to hockey. It's a question of 'how long' rather than 'if'.
With Fehr negotiating, the lockout is prolonged, but the PA gets a better deal for itself.
Without Fehr negotiating, the lockout is shorter, but the PA gives up more.

As far as both sides having enough help is concerned, sure, they could both theoretically agree on everything right now and end the lockout. The issues are still fairly big. Max. contract lengths and max deviance year to year are big issues for some players. Big enough that they'd still rather have Fehr take the time to get them a deal that's slightly better than sign the NHL's offer right away and get back on the ice.

How about you give them another day or 2 to work on stuff then bring him in before you sign on off on it.

Plus it had to be voted on by the NHLPA right?

It seems to me that the players got to a point where they felt they couldn't go further without that check from Fehr, or his presence to go to the next level. They shouldn't be vilified if they found their collective limit, nor should it be a legitimate basis for shutting down talks.

It seems to me that the players got to a point where they felt they couldn't go further without that check from Fehr, or his presence to go to the next level. They shouldn't be vilified if they found their collective limit, nor should it be a legitimate basis for shutting down talks.

That sounds fair if that really is the reason.

However, I fail to see why you need the other Fehr. You already have 1 of them in the room doing the negotiating.

On one hand, Hainsey is correct, on the other - the union hired a guy who can't close a deal to save his life. I'm glad the PA thinks they're united, but they're only hurting themselves at this point. Every time Fehr gets involved the talks take a giant step back.

Step back and take a look at the offer on the table instead of buying the BS being slung by Bettman.